Christ Krew V. 45 Finally A New Thread!

Those who use "once saved always saved" as an excuse have failed to understand that salvation involves genuine repentance, meaning that if you aren't interested in modifying your behaviour you aren't saved. Salvation is considered to be about the state of the heart. This is the case in most protestant churches regardless of OSAS position or not. I've mostly attended OSAS, and there has always been an emphasis from the pulpit on not using that as an excuse. "What then, should we go on sinning that grace may abound? Of course not!" - so the bible doesn't allow it anyway.

This is funny, because Christians are technically persecuted everywhere, you just have to leave the protective bubble of church society to be persecuted.

Agreed....just turn on the TV, read the newspaper, or go on the internet we are bombarded with anti-Christian messages in the media...no wonder the world is hostile towards us....but Scripture did say that this is how it would be.

Agreed....just turn on the TV, read the newspaper, or go on the internet we are bombarded with anti-Christian messages in the media...no wonder the world is hostile towards us....but Scripture did say that this is how it would be.

Uhh....

__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"

Inaccurate....at first I was like interesting I've never seen a diagram like this and as I started to go through it I got confused and then red flags started popping up. Particularly with how the Sacraments are portrayed. Then I discovered that this diagram was created by James McCarthy a Protestant apologist who was a former Catholic and whose ministry is to preach Jesus to Catholics. So after further digging I discovered this came from McCarthy's book "The Gospel According to Rome." I haven't read the book but here is an article debating some of it: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a64.htm

McCarthy basically has pretty much the same misconceptions of Catholicism and of course believes in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidei.

If you want to hear the discussion on salvation fast forward to 23:18. Hopefully you'll get a clearer picture of what Catholicism teaches about salvation and how the misconceptions that the caller, hosts, and McCarthy think that Catholicism teaches. It was kind of frustrating because McCarthy and the hosts couldn't see past their own understanding of what Catholicism teaches to what Mr. Hunt is saying is Catholic teaching. I was quite pleased with how Mr. Hunt handled himself despite being the only Catholic on the show.

I'd be interested to know exactly what about it is inaccurate. I'd also be interested to see a list of the common misconceptions you allude to. Ideally the chart should be judged on its merits rather than the motivations of its author.

That said, The "Peter is the rock" argument never worked for me. Given that Peter was the most prolific evangelist of the apostles afaik, and given that solid evangelism was necessary to establish a foundation for the church it seems to me most likely that Jesus was referring to Peter's evangelistic work, which certainly did establish a foundation (rock) for the church regardless of whether you accept the RC position.

I'd be interested to know exactly what about it is inaccurate. .... Ideally the chart should be judged on its merits rather than the motivations of its author.

If you listened to the debate in the link I posted up you should see that Mr. McCarthy just like he said on the radio believes that Catholics believe faith + works are required for their salvation. So the first thing that this chart does is it basically shows that Catholics doing all these "works" to attend Salvation. No where does this chart show that:
1. Catholics believe that it is Jesus' death on the Cross that has won us our salvation
2. That Catholics believe that salvation is a gift from God. Nothing that I can do or anyone else can "earn" my salvation. It is God's gift and my salvation is entirely up to God. The good works that I do are only good and meritous because of God and not because of my own doing. I think that's what the host and McCarthy were having trouble understanding when Mr. Hunt explained the Catholic Church's teaching on salvation.

This chart doesn't show the complete picture and only the picture that McCarthy wants to show which is all these "works" being done to attain salvation. That these works will result in Justification. The Council of Trent declared that "justification is accomplished by God alone, by means of His own righteousness alone, merited by the superabundant satisfaction made by Christ alone "(cf. the “causes” of justification in chapter VII of Trent’s Decree on Justification). The chart does not explain nor address what the Sacraments are to Catholics. The flow chart style adds to the misconception as if Catholics believes all these steps will earn our salvation. If I wasn't Catholic and I was shown this chart I'd definitely conclude that Catholics believe they have all these steps that they can do to earn their reward in Heaven. Lastly, the merits of this chart is connected to the motivation of the author. His goal is to present what he believes the Catholic church teaches and therefore is presenting false or incomplete information. And if you listened to the debate it was quite clear that Mr. Hunt had to correct Mr. McCarthy on his misconceptions on Catholic teaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

I'd also be interested to see a list of the common misconceptions you allude to

There are many and will vary according to each person/organization. In no particular order and certainly not a comprehensive list:

The Catholic Church discourages Bible reading - time and time again I find it amusing when non-Catholic Christians are shocked when I quote from Scripture.

Idolatry - Catholics worship Mary, the Saints...statues - The fact that I was challenged on it here in this thread a few months ago proves my point.
I even responded to that person's accusations using Scripture. He never followed-up to my post.

Catholics are not Christian - it can be frustrating when people would say "Are you Christian or Catholic?" I am grateful that my application into this group was accepted as I did wonder if I was going to be rejected on the account of being considered not a Christian.

Totally infallible - The Pope is infallible on all things. - I rarely get into the discussion about the Pope but I know that many non-Catholic Christians understanding of the Office of the Pope, the Magisterium, and what we mean by the Popes Infallibility is definitely misunderstood.

Anti-Science this is more for the secularists out there than other Christians.

Indulgences - Yup Catholics believe they can pay their way into heaven. Much like the misconception that Catholics believe in a doctrine of works for salvation. This is another misunderstood topic.

Emperor Constantine invented the Catholic Church in 325 AD - I actually had a Christian tell me this. The Catholic Church continues to state that it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Of course everyone in here who is not Catholic will say otherwise.

Priestly Celibacy - Catholic priests can't get married. - Not true. There are some married priests. Albeit not as much as other denominations and only under certain conditions. This is also a Church discipline and different from a Church dogma. Bishops though cannot be married.

Modified Bible - Catholics "added" to the Bible. - Totally untrue and the reality is Luther removed books from the Bible and had he have his way he would've removed the Epistle of James, Revelation, and other books as well. Not to mention that we now have various Bible translations that have been altered by various groups to serve their own purpose.

Medieval Papacy - The Papacy is a medieval invention. See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

That said, The "Peter is the rock" argument never worked for me. Given that Peter was the most prolific evangelist of the apostles afaik, and given that solid evangelism was necessary to establish a foundation for the church it seems to me most likely that Jesus was referring to Peter's evangelistic work, which certainly did establish a foundation (rock) for the church regardless of whether you accept the RC position.

I disagree it was quite clear that Peter was the leader of the Apostles and that even Paul, despite having to correct Peter also understood Peter's
role as the leader of the Apostles and the early church. Granted some Popes haven't been the greatest we have a succession of Popes all the way to Peter and no other Church can claim Apostolic Succession like the Catholic Church. That's just how history lays it out. Anyways the link I posted earlier(which I presume is why you made this comment) debating McCarthy's book has all the explanations if you wanted to learn more.

By the way vijil - your simple statement in that other thread(the one on the school shooting and God's plan) has really gotten those folks in a long debate....such that it detracts from the OP question..people will debate for the sake of debating I guess.

Yep they'll do that. Haven't really followed much that particular thread to be honest. Pretty much the same thread pops up anytime something horrible happens. Answer is the same as it was in biblical times, and is recorded.

Anywho's - Merry Christmas all.

Hope you all have (or have had, you men from the future ) a blessed day with family and friends.

God bless.

__________________

Which thief~»†††«~are you?ChristKrew #185Anointing foreheads with the paintball for a while now.

Hah, yeah that other thread... I tend to go into those threads, post once or twice, get annoyed at the usual attitude of the village atheists and don't bother going back. I suppose one can't expect them to be better at basic logic than their role models.

Thanks for the explanations.

I'll confess I didn't listen to the entire debate - I probably should.

I think the issues aren't so much with works vs faith, but in how that's interpreted. When a protestant says "salvation is by faith alone" they mean something different to when a catholic says the same. It seems to come down to word games.

Ok, incoming omnislash...

I think the catholic church certainly has discouraged bible reading at times in its history, but these days this will mostly come down to individual congregations (same applies to protestants - many modern groups hardly open the word).

Idolatry - depends how you define "worship". Praying to, making shrines for, singing songs about. Most people would consider this worship.

"Catholics are not Christian" - Just like protestant denominations, many catholic churches make it quite possible to attend long term without ever hearing the actual gospel. Friends of mine are in this position. I accept that it depends on the group and may not reflect official policy.

The Pope - I've always been aware that the Pope is only considered infallible when speaking Ex-cathedra. It seems like what does and doesn't count as ex cathedra is extremely difficult to ascertain however, so it's all very muddy. As far as I can make out, given that whatever the pope teaches must be accepted, everything is effectively treated as infallible - only an allowance is perhaps made for things changing over time.

Indulgences - At times the RC church has very clearly abused this in the name of revenue, but I understand this may not still be the case.

Constantine - on this I need more work. I think his motivations were pretty good actually.

Priestly Celibacy - few church policies have backfired as much as this one in the public eye, regardless of the details. I understand the justification for it, but think it would be better to remove this policy and leave the decision up to the individual.

Modified Bible - Catholics did not add to the Bible, but nor did Luther actually remove anything (he wanted to, but did not, and actually ended up leaving everything in including the apocrypha - only with a foreword about how it's not on the same level).

On your last point - my point didn't rest on your response, I'm simply saying that one does not have to accept the RC ideas about Peter and the papacy in order for the "rock" comments to make sense in biblical context.

-----

I'll be clear, I consider the "third wave" charismatic movement to be significantly worse than the RC church doctrinally in many areas (genuinely demonic in some cases), in case you think I like to pick on Catholics - I'm much more familiar with their teachings and error than with RC ideas. That would likely change if I started dating an RC...

Hah, yeah that other thread... I tend to go into those threads, post once or twice, get annoyed at the usual attitude of the village atheists and don't bother going back. I suppose one can't expect them to be better at basic logic than their role models....

Yea I rarely post in the threads outside of this one due to attitudes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

Thanks for the explanations. ...

You're welcome

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

I'll confess I didn't listen to the entire debate - I probably should....

You should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

I think the issues aren't so much with works vs faith, but in how that's interpreted. When a protestant says "salvation is by faith alone" they mean something different to when a catholic says the same. It seems to come down to word games....

It's more but definitely the word game does come into play with understanding what is meant by the different beliefs. If anything the best way I can say it is is the Catholic Church believes in the doctrine of "Grace Alone." That it is only by God's grace can one have faith AND works and that these things are only meritous towards salvation because of God's grace "alone."

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

I think the catholic church certainly has discouraged bible reading at times in its history, but these days this will mostly come down to individual congregations (same applies to protestants - many modern groups hardly open the word)....

I think today especially after Vatican II (1960s) the Catholic Church continues to encourage it's members to read the Bible. We probably have more Bible readings in our Sunday Liturgy than most Protestant Worship services. At least that's what many former protestant now Catholic Apologists say. The discouragement throughout history is likely because 1.) There was a time when only the learned could read the Bible and many times it was either the nobles or the monks. 2.) Bibles were expensive to reproduce and therefore were valued treasures that were limited again to the rich nobles and monks. 3.) Because we do not believe in the Doctrine of Sola Fidei or Scripture Alone as the sole source of our faith I believe there was a time when Church leaders discouraged layman from reading the Bible without the proper understanding. They were right as today we see thousands upon thousands of different "Bible" churches all interpreting the Bible according to their own interpretations. Sola Scriptura at it's finest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

Idolatry - depends how you define "worship". Praying to, making shrines for, singing songs about. Most people would consider this worship....

I've gone down this road already and I've already proven using Scripture that religious statues and praying to the Saints is no more unbiblical as me asking you to pray for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

"Catholics are not Christian" - Just like protestant denominations, many catholic churches make it quite possible to attend long term without ever hearing the actual gospel. Friends of mine are in this position. I accept that it depends on the group and may not reflect official policy....

The biggest case against Catholicism is Catholics themselves. Time and time again Catholics who attend regularly liturgy at least once a week on Sunday or any day of the week will get at least 1 reading from the old testament, a psalm, and the Gospel (plus add one of the letters from the new testament on Sundays) not to mention the liturgy prayers and songs are filled with Scripture. Yet there are those Catholics who just go through the motions (as I'm sure there are in protestant churches) and do not go any further in developing their relationship with Jesus. The Gospel is preached and there are countless ministries and lay organizations within a parish that certainly not only add in this preaching but live it So perhaps some blame can be made on the parish Priest or the local Bishop but when someone says they don't hear the Gospel in the Catholic Church they were never really listening to begin with or refuse to accept that they are partially at fault for not taking their faith seriously. We all know people like this and unfortunately many Catholics fall into this category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

The Pope - I've always been aware that the Pope is only considered infallible when speaking Ex-cathedra. It seems like what does and doesn't count as ex cathedra is extremely difficult to ascertain however, so it's all very muddy. As far as I can make out, given that whatever the pope teaches must be accepted, everything is effectively treated as infallible - only an allowance is perhaps made for things changing over time....

Again, there must be made a distinction between when the Pope defines a teaching from the Chair of Peter and the Magisterium which is infallible and when the Pope makes a general comment. Keep in mind that these Infallible declarations haven't happen for some time now. Most of what the Pope says today and even during the late John Paul II's pontificate is nothing new and many times just their take on matters, Scripture, etc. There's more to this process than simply saying the Pope is on TV and every statement he makes is infallible and Catholics must obey. When a Pope defines doctrine it is something that cannot contradict the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

Indulgences - At times the RC church has very clearly abused this in the name of revenue, but I understand this may not still be the case....

True and this happened a few hundreds years ago. The protestant revolt with Luther did help to address these abuses. Too bad Luther decided it wasn't enough. Since then Indulgences are not as "popular" among Catholics as they once were and any abuse is only in the eyes of protestants today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

Constantine - on this I need more work. I think his motivations were pretty good actually....

Still doesn't change the fact that Catholicism has been around way before Constantine as evidence in the Early writings of the Church. Again, no other church can claim apostolic succession like the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

Priestly Celibacy - few church policies have backfired as much as this one in the public eye, regardless of the details. I understand the justification for it, but think it would be better to remove this policy and leave the decision up to the individual....

I disagree. The sex scandal although horrible was definitely blown out of proportion. The percentage of pedophilia amongst Catholic Priests was less than 1%. There were other forms of sexual scandal in the priesthood but even then that percentage was less than 1%. The study's I've seen basically showed that this was no different from other Christian denominations who have a married clergy or pastors. It was media sensationalism attacking the big old Roman Catholic Church that made it seem way out proportion. Having looked at becoming a priest I entered into the aspirant phase of the seminary and left just before my novitiate. I understood what celibacy meant and I believe now as a married man with children that a priest must be married to the church less he will be torn between serving the flock and serving his wife as St. Paul clearly stated in Scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

Modified Bible - Catholics did not add to the Bible, but nor did Luther actually remove anything (he wanted to, but did not, and actually ended up leaving everything in including the apocrypha - only with a foreword about how it's not on the same level)....

No, he actually removed it. There are German translations that showed that he removed these books. It was only at the pleading of some his colleagues that he decided to add them back. In fact it was Luther who added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in order to prove that protestant doctrine of Sola Fidei or Faith Alone is valid. It's also why he wanted to get rid of the Letter of St. James.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

On your last point - my point didn't rest on your response, I'm simply saying that one does not have to accept the RC ideas about Peter and the papacy in order for the "rock" comments to make sense in biblical context....

Noted. I guess this is an example of how people can interpret Scripture differently. Although maybe not in this instance but definitely throughout history after the protestant reformation Christianity has been divided and weakened by Sola Scriptura because instead of 1 authority to interpret Scripture you have thousands if not millions who interpret Scripture all claiming to have the correct interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijil

I'll be clear, I consider the "third wave" charismatic movement to be significantly worse than the RC church doctrinally in many areas (genuinely demonic in some cases), in case you think I like to pick on Catholics - I'm much more familiar with their teachings and error than with RC ideas. That would likely change if I started dating an RC...

Even if you dated a Catholic you may end up more confused....just saying

wow some big topics are going on here that I seem to have missed...now I come to the place in my life when I must consider, "Do I enter into this discussion or enter in when something else comes up." Hmmm, still debating with myself on this one.

Just let him be. Clearly they know very little about roman history if they are claiming persecution.

Do us a favor and take such comments outside of our Christian thread. If you want to comment you are more than welcome but we ask that you do so with respectful and intelligent responses. Now since you probably think my comment was not intelligent let's get some things straight. I am well aware of the persecutions that Christians have suffered since the very first Martyr, St. Stephen which coincidentally the Roman Catholic Church celebrated his feast day yesterday. If you missed it the discussion was about this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000... od=hp_opinion

The fact is people can be persecuted without being killed. Not being able to practice your religion in public is persecution and we see this even in America which is supposed to be the Land of the Free.

Or perhaps in your mind someone needs to actually die in order to be persecuted. I guess the Christians that are being killed today in parts of Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central and South America, and other parts of the world only qualify as being persecuted and yet the media rarely reports on these events that are occurring.

I would further say that Christians are being killed right here in America too. In fact thousands of Christians die every year at abortion clinics across America. A silent holocaust that is "justified" and based on "reason." The most innocent of human society killed by indifference. History will show that abortion clinics, abortion doctors and staff and pro-death...I mean pro-choice politicians will be more successful than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, or Stalin ever was in eradicating the "unwanted" persons of society.

"What is taking place in America, is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta in 1997 to the US President and First Lady.

Where are you not allowed to practice Christianity in the open in the USA? Also who's oppressing Christians in Central and South America? Abortion is persecution? Wat?

__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"

Where are you not allowed to practice Christianity in the open in the USA? Also who's oppressing Christians in Central and South America? Abortion is persecution? Wat?

The HHS Mandate that the current US administration is forcing down religioius organizations throats which basically says either support healthcare coverage for contraceptives to employees or be faced with severe penalties. Or Catholic hospitals being forced to provide such treatments which may include abortions or face the possiblity of closure because of this HHS Mandate. These are outright violations of religious freedom for these religious institutions who find contraceptives and abortion morally wrong and against their beliefs. I'll even add Canada to the mix with both euthanasia and abortion being legal that country.

Venezuela and Cuba - these Socialist and Communist states continue to make it difficult for religious groups.

Peru - many Christians lie in prison unjustly accused of terrorism.

Add the drug cartels and corrupt governments who have no problem with removing Christians who "get in the way" and you've got some pretty dangerous places to be as a Christian. Not to mention the numerous abortion laws and anti-life movements in Central and South America that make it difficult for Christians who find these things immoral. There are however some governments that are more tolerant towards Christians so not all of Central and South America is physically violent towards Christians.

Yes abortion is persecution. No matter how you cherry coat it with reason and justification. It is specifically targeting or persecuting a particular group and that is the defenseless unborn babies in the womb.

You're saying the HHS mandate requires CHURCHES to provide contraception? Do all the employees of the church hospital follow said religion? No, which is the point. Churches aren't required to abide by the HHS mandate but EMPLOYERS are. Your same argument can go the opposite way in that not allowing someone the choice is impinging upon their right to freedom of religion.

You're double counting and over emphasising for South America but you do have a point with those two countries.

Protip, in order for a fetus to become a baby it has to be born and thus not eligible for abortion.

__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"

That's exactly the point. Many of the employer's of the hosptial, schools, universities are the churches that founded and run them. If you have a problem with working for a religious runned organization or even a religious employer such as Dominoes, who has by the way filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration for the HHS mandate, you are "free" to work else where.

I think it's safe to say that the fact that Christians have been killed and/or jailed in various countries in South America isn't overemphasis. If it is, tell that to the victims and their families.

I need you clarify your comment on abortion. Are you saying a baby has to be born to be counted as an abortion?